Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Young and old earth Creationism » Evidence that the earth is Young

Evidence that the earth is Young

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Oct 24, 2015 7:56 am


Evidence that the earth is Young 1

Rick Swindell  The influx of salt into the oceans from all sources set at its absolute minimum and all possible sources of escape of salt from the ocean set at their absolute maximum give an upper limit to the age of the earth's oceans at 62 million years from a single differential equation, much too little time for evolution.

The recession of the moon from the earth is caused by the the tides that the moon pulls along since the earth rotates faster than the moon revolves about the earth. This tidal force pulls on the moon and accelerates it, (when the astronauts want to go up in orbit, they accelerate). 

Since this rate of recession is varying constantly, decreasing constantly because the gravitational force is measured as the mass of object 1 times the mass of object 2 times the gravitational constant divided by the radius between the centers of mass squared, the further apart the objects are the smaller the gravitational pull and the less the force between them.

If you do the math correctly this puts an upper limit to the amount of time the moon has been moving away from the earth at about 1.4 billion years, at which point it would have fallen into contact with earth. 

These are only two of the ways the age of the earth can be measured and there are many others that set much shorter possible upper limits on its age.

The question about the age of the earth and the universe is a major reason that naturalists use to justify their rejection of the Bible. They think it contrasts scientific consensus, and geologic dating methods are more relevant and trustworthy than a book written thousands of years ago by sheep herders. It is actually an integral point in the framework of atheistic thinking. Since the bible got it wrong, and the earth cannot be six thousand years old, the entire bible amongst other fairies, like talking snakes, can be rejected - so they think. And remain by it, without looking further if an explanation without a creator makes sense.

Things are however far from that clear.

Most people go to school to learn a profession, which will permit them to get a decent job, make professional career, be successful financial wise - they grow in terms of professional education - but most remain like little babies in regards of forming a consistent epistemological framework that permits them to make safe conclusions on fundamental questions and aspects of life. Where do we come from, where do we go, what happens when we die, what is the meaning of life, does God exist, which is the right organized religion etc.

Usually, people give little importance to these questions, and go through life, without ever spending time and dedication to scrutinize the various models of thought coming from philosophy, theology, and science.
Most also pre-select, what fits THEIR needs, and adopt their world-view to what pleases them. It's like going to a three-star Michelin restaurant, and select the most tasteful menu. Presuppositionalism at its best.

The quest of the age of the earth is IRRELEVANT to elucidate if God does exist.

Try to infer the age of the earth by the scientific method, is like asking a layman that has very limited understanding about how an airplane is built, to visit a Boeing factory, showing him all the single parts of the airplane, and ask him to imagine how it is built together, and then infer what model the airplane is. It's a daunting task, basically impossible.
It's like you arrive at an archeological site, and find a fraction of the remainings of an artifact, and have to find out what it was. Fact is, many kinds of evidence are not available to us for scrutinize.

- the dating methods seem to presuppose and assume for example what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And then, depending on the assumptions made, obtain any date.

- we do not know how long soft tissue like collagen can remain preserved.

- old earthers visit the Grand Canyon and think it provides hints to millions of years of sediment deposits

- young earthers visit it and think the opposite
- some old bones are found in Somalia, and some say they are apes, others argue they are our ancestors.

So that leaves ALWAYS room for speculation, and the " I am right " vs " no. I am right " kind of debates usually provide just frustration and mutual accusations, without changing the mind of anybody.

i remain without any conclusion based on science about the age of the earth. But based on what the bible tells me, as a matter of faith, I believe the earth is young.

The only reason I approach the issue from time to time is to advance my understanding of specific issues, but I don't think during my lifetime evidence will emerge, which will permit to make informed conclusions based on a clear picture.
Fortunately, there are other topics of origins, where the situation is crystal clear like water from Swiss mountains.

The first question I ask when an atheist ridicules a young earth interpretation is if he has an education in geology and dating methods. If he doesn't ( which is 99,9% the case ), I deduce he is a gullible parrot that bases his position on blind faith, on hearsay, and based on that, he thinks he has a basis to make fun of others position.

Mortenson noted the following in Chap 14 of his book Coming to Grips With Genesis, “Luther, Calvin and Wesley on the Genesis of Natural Evil.” by T. Ury: The 3 founders above held Genesis 1-11 as real history and the flood as global and catastrophic(p.401). Wesley wrote about the 6 day creation, and also affirmed the flood as 1656 yrs. from the creation. Also Anglican bishop Hugh Latimer held this view. This was based on careful exegesis of the scriptures. Hall claimed in Chap. 2 of Mortenson (D. Hall p.53) that the reformation church fathers held to a 6 day creation. Also Thomas Horn, an Anglican, did a lengthy three volumes titled “Introduction to the critical Study of the Holy Scriptures” in 1818. A condensed version published in 1827 that was widely used in seminaries and also held this view. It was only after the scientific opinion shifted in the late 19th century, that other long age positions developed to accommodate a scientific view. Hall’s write up covers 25 pages and 116 references in tracing the history of creation from Luther to Lyell. Dr. Morris(2007 p.26-32) notes that most of the other theological views of creation with long ages became popular after the theories of uniformitarianism and evolution became dominant; they are an attempt to make the Bible fit science. Snelling(p.186,479), in the section on geology, traces the history of these theories and how Lyell had a prior agenda to be rid of biblical geology and flood catastrophes. Lyell issued a false report on the erosion rate of Niagara Falls, which when corrected, fits better with biblical timelines (web 58).

Coming to grips with Genesis, Terry Mortenson, page 33
The important early North African Trinitarian theologian Tertullian (A.D. 115–222) asserted that the “whole orb” was “overrun by all waters.” His proof was that “To this day marine conchs and tritons’ horns sojourn as foreigners on the mountains, eager to prove to Plato that even the heights have undulated.”82 Tertullian also referred to the deluge as “that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things.”83
Tertulliam, On the Apparel of Women 1.3, in ANF, vol. 4.

Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 329–389) was a Bishop of Constantinople (380–381) and one of the anti-Arian “Three Great Cappadocian” theologians. Gregory pointed to Noah as having been “entrusted with the saving of the whole world from the waters” and as having “escaped the Deluge in a small Ark.”84 And the great western theologian Augustine climaxed the fathers’ affirmation that the Noachian Flood was worldwide. Augustine argued against an exclusively allegorical interpretation by asserting that the Flood was “so great” that its waters rose “fifteen cubits above the highest mountains.”85 Further evidence of the fathers’ consistency of the worldwide Flood view is given by Young, who relates that Procopius of Gaza (c. A.D. 465–528) in his Commentary on Genesis and Pseudo-Eustathius (n.d.) in his Commentary on Hexaemeron argue for the worldwide extent of the Flood by recalling that
marine remains (e.g., shells, various types of fish) had been found on high mountains. Pseudo- Eustathius claimed that the fish must have been “gathered together in the caves of the mountains when they were caught in the mud.” Young notes that Pseudo-Justin (probably Theodoret of Cyrus — c. 393–466) was the only extant father to suggest the possibility of a local Flood.86

It now appears that the history of post-1800 exegesis is much like that: it has dodged one theoretical toss or thrust after another. In the process, these evolving-to-fit-current-theory views have become so contorted or mutated that the historic view is no longer recognizable. However, once realized, that should be a methodology to avoid.116

Here you go, everybody.  Some reasons that the earth cannot POSSIBLY be 4.6
billion years old. 2

Young Universe Evidence
1) An insufficient number of supernovas/rate at which they occur. A new
supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few
thousand in existence.
2) The absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that
some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out
in a "field".
3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a
star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one
would expect all the stars would be the same age.
Young Solar System Evidence
1) Rate of bombardment of meteoritic dust/amount of dust measured on the
moon. Should be several hundred feet of dust on the moon. Several years ago
this creationist argument was dismissed, and many creationists themselves
stopped using it. However, in light of the latest scientific research, this
argument has been revived.
2) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of several
thousand years because they give off copious material each orbit.
3) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the
Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar
system clean of small particles.
4) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not
stable and will not last.
5) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources
for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.
6) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury,
Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal
dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field
around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of
existence if they ever had any.
7) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old
craters on the moon.
8.  Recession of the moon from the earth. Moon is moving away from the earth
gradually due to tidal activity. Movement is too fast for earth-moon system
to be 4.6 billion years old.
9) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't
extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's
10) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core
should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number
of neutrinos - this is a well-known problem. Some creationists have argued
that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would
imply a young sun.
11) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time
12) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.
13) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.
Young Earth Evidence
1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000
years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about 10,000
years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists have
been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of context
and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then
strengthening). However, it is the old earth believers that have concocted
this data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It is the
creationist who has used only the empirical evidence, to devise a theory
that truly explains that data now available to us.
2) Insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6
billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive
decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any
other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive
decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.
3) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices, evidence indicates
that the human species should have populated the earth much more quickly if
they had been around for millions of years.
4) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.
5) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be traced
back more than several thousand years.
6) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few
thousand years old.
7) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment
accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.
8.  Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach
equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't
reached that point yet.
9) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net erosion
rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic activity, and
geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the ocean in about 14
million years.
10) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is actually
many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For example,
all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been ashed in about 62
million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.
11) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled from
below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via
volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the earth's
12) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs remaining so
high for millions of years.
13) Existence of uranium halos.
14) Existence of polonium halos.  Some believe that the polonium halos
disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they may
indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout
history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid (instant) creation of the
-Polonium Halos from

"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks--the granites--are beautiful
microspheres of coloration

produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to
have only a fleeting

existence. A simple analogy shows, on one hand, how these polonium
microspheres--or halos--contradict

the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over
millions of years. On the

other hand, it demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of
an almost instantaneous

creation of granites: A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared
with an Alka-Seltzer dropped

into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the
moment that polonium atoms began

to emit radioactive particles.

In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as
quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were
instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos
could have formed only if specks of polonium had been instantly encased in
solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in
granites around the world. Just as the frozen bubbles would be clear
evidence of quick-freezing of water, so are polonium halos undeniable
evidence that many rapidly 'effervescing' specks of created polonium
interacted with a sea of primordial matter which was directly 'frozen' as
solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly
implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony
with the biblical record of creation."

"Evidence for a Rapidly Formed Geologic Column"

The geologic column (representing all the earth's observed sedimentary rock)
in classical geology  represents hundreds of millions of years of
evolutionary history. Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather than
over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young geologic column and
a young earth. It should be noted that the "geologic column" is purely
hypothetical and cannot be found in a complete form anywhere on earth other
than in a textbook.

1) Lack of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic column is
billions of years old one would expect to find meteorites throughout.
2) Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks. This
implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features could
not survive even trivial erosion.
3) Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across multiple geologic
layers that were supposedly laid down millions of years apart. Fossilized
trees and animals are often found in tact and spanning supposedly millions
of years of geologic layers.
4) Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes don't account for
regional deposits (covering multiple U.S. states, for example). This applies
to certain types of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.
5) Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed and hadn't
hardened into rock.
6) Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column. Biological activity soon
disturbs sedimentary deposits formed by modern catastrophes (hurricanes and
floods) but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This implies that the
geologic column was buried very deeply and rapidly.
7) Lack of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil material is
seldom found in the geologic column. One would think that the earth had soil
layers in the past, and if it was slowly buried, some would be preserved.
8. Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock layers often show
sharp, knife-edge breaks between layers, with no evidence of erosion
between. This is not realistic if the layers formed over long periods of
9) Clastic dikes. Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand squeezed up
through newer layers of rock. This implies that the sandy older (lower)
layer was still soft enough to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a toothpaste
tube) through the younger upper layers.

The Earth's Magnetic Field

The earth's magnetic field is a powerful witness for a world much younger
than the billions of years required by evolutionary theories. Let's start
the story with the most prominent feature of the field today--its very rapid

"The Field Is Decaying Rapidly"

The average 'intensity' of the earth's magnetic field has decreased
exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829.  The
field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us
the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the
field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate
the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show
that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829.
This rapid decay of both energy and intensity was not widely known, even
among scientists, until Dr. Thomas Barnes, a reationist physicist, began
publicizing it in 1971.  He pointed out that such a decay would occur very
naturally if the electrical current producing the field were slowly losing
energy because of the electrical resistance of the core.  This theory is
called 'free decay.' The observed decay rate is exactly what one would
expect from the electrical properties of the materials most likely to be in
the core.

"Evolutionary Theories Haven't Worked"

The free-decay theory contradicts the evolutionary "dynamo" theories, which
claim that complex processes in the earth's core have converted heat energy
into electrical energy, much like an electric  generator, maintaining the
field for billions of years.  Many intelligent scientists have been working
on dynamo theories for over four decades without great success. Furthermore,
recent measurements of electric currents in the sea floor weigh heavily
against the most popular class of dynamo theories.
Thus evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the
rapid decay of the field, whereas the free-decay theory does. However, our
historical data on the intensity of the field only goes back to 1829. Was
the field decaying before that? Fortunately, there is a scientific way to
answer that question.

"Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery,
campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists.
Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction
of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal
temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity
of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is
today, and that it has declined steadily since then.
Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of
years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the
past in order for it to still exist today. Creationists of the 1970s
extrapolated today's decay back into the past, showing that the field could
not be more than about 10,000 years old, assuming a constant decay of

"The Field's 'Energy' Has Always Decreased"

According to the dynamic-decay theory, the 'energy' in the field has always
decreased rapidly. In fact, the energy loss during reversals and
fluctuations would have been even faster than today's rate. This information
allows us to estimate the age of the field.
The data and the dynamic-decay theory imply that, ever since creation, the
field has always lost at least half its energy every 700 years. Figure 2
illustrates the factors involved. The maximum energy in the figure comes
from another theory I proposed about the nature of the field when God
created the earth, a theory which successfully predicted space probe
measurements of planetary magnetic fields.  Extrapolating today's energy
decay rate back (along the dotted straight line labeled 'free decay') to
that limit yields a maximum age of 8700 years. According to the
dynamic-decay theory, the true age would be less than that because of extra
losses during the reversals and fluctuations. The solid line (labeled
'dynamic decay') shows that with a significant loss of energy during the
Genesis flood, the age of the field would be about 6000 years.


At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid
reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory-a theory that fits
all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the
earth's magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely
less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical
age of 6,000 years.

Level 3
Zircon-Lead Ratios
Atmospheric Carbon
Earth's Magnetic Field
Amino Acid Racemization
Lunar Radioactive Heat
Zircon-Helium Ratios
Argon Diffusion
Coral Reefs
Ocean Salt
Lunar Gases
Lunar Isotopes
Lunar Phenomena
The Receding Moon
The Mississippi River
Mitochondrial DNA
The Cooling Earth
Ocean Sediments
Fossils Form Quickly
Atmospheric Oxygen
Organic Material in Fossils
Ocean Minerals
Earth's Slowing Rotation
Mountain Uplift Rate
Mutation Load
Fossil DNA
Level 2
Planetary Diversity
Atmospheric Helium
Stone Age Skeletons
The Niagara River
Polystrate Fossils
Dead Sea Salt
Bent Strata
Level 1
Ocean Erosion
Continental Erosion
Missing Drainage Systems
The Oldest Recorded Date
Population Growth
Oil Seepage
Oil Pressure


Last edited by Admin on Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:40 am; edited 10 times in total

View user profile

2 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:28 am


Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences 1

Evidence for a Young EarthThe Age of the Earth: Part Five
Does it not seem odd that there are NO televised debates between evolution-believing scientists and creation scientists?  Could it be because of scientists like Dr. Duanne Gish, who for many years did debate such issues on college campuses, yet because he either "held his own" or won,  little by little, evolutionists became unwilling to debate.  Kent Hovind noticed the same thing and explains why in a presentation he gave at U.C. Berkeley in 2004.  This is because the facts of science do not support the assertion (or belief) that no intelligence or Intelligent Being was needed to create life and/or its vast and varied forms.  

In fact, more and more people are realizing that since they didn't make themselves, then  Somebody else must have done so, and that a Creator is necessary to Create.Living things are so complex that even people with college degrees in science are realizing that life could not have made itself even in trillions of years.  In this regard Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA's structure, proposed that life must have come from outer space -- simply because of its complexity and because nobody can explain where the information in DNA came from: at least not apart from an Intelligent Being.  Even water itself works against the creation of life from non-life.  

Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists, there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a  young age for the earth, solar system, and universe.  In fact, such young earth indicators are in the majority.  But  because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely told about the mounting evidence that contradicts the belief in an old earth and the many holes in evolution.  
In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young.  Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY and repeatedly proclaimed to be a fact, is actually based on a strong desire to eliminate God from His own Creation  rather than on scientific facts.
Time Clocks:

A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant  rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been taking place.  All clocks (including  radiometric ones) require the use of  at least  three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.
In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true.  For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation  rates, and with  clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty.  Therefore scientists  must  make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been.  The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.

1.  Receding Moon:  
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides.  The tidal friction  between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added  to the Moon.  This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon." 1  This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but  more importantly,  the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from  the  Earth.1, 2   The rate  of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3  however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:  

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects.  In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system. 4
Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists.  Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems.  It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
See also: [url= Closer Look at the Age of the Earth.htm#And What Does the Moon Have to say about all this?]What does the Moon have to say about this[/url] ... ? 2.  Oil Pressure:  
When  oil  wells are  drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a  problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous.  For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure.  However, for some reason it doesn't.  Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago?  Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left. 5,6,7,8Here's More. 

3.  The Sun:

Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one  million  years ago that no life could have survived.  And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. 9,10,11,12Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old,  then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is seems to be what the evidence points to.  
See also: The Young Faint Sun Paradox, Global Warming - Is the Sun to Blame?, and  Speedy Star changes Baffle Long-Agers

  4.  The Oldest Living Thing:  
The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine.  If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old.  The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't  yet  know how old they will get before they die.  It also strongly suggests that something  happened  around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. 13,14,15Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees.  Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings.  This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis.  
Note: In 2013 a Bristlecone Pine tree was discovered that has just over 5,000 tree rings
See also [url= Things]Evidence from Living Things
Helium in the Atmosphere:   
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238 as it decays into various different elements into its final stable element: lead 206. As it decays, the helium not only accumulates in the rocks themselves, but also escapes from them and accumulates in the earth's atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of  helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of  uranium  in  the earth's crustal rocks.  From this they estimate the amount  of  helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time.  They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.  
If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium -- then the earth's  atmosphere is at most 1.76  million years old. 16,17Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years. 18  
See also: Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.  

6.  Short Period Comets:   
Short  period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19  With each revolution they lose 1/2 of  one percent of their mass.  Thus, after several hundred revolutions they disintegrate.  At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of  which  have periods of  less than 20 years.20  Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added.
Evolutionists  have come up with  theories to explain the existence of comets, and how new ones are being added. One is called the Oort Cloud theory, named after  J. Oort.  This suggests that a hypothetical cloud surrounds the solar system that is said to extend past the orbit of Pluto.21  The other theory is called  the Kuiper belt theory, and it is directed at short period comets, as opposed to to Oort Cloud theory, which is directed at both long and short period ones. Although some people claim that the Kuiper belt has been discovered, to this author's knowledge that is not the case. Nor has even one hypothetical object (i.e. asteroid of comet material) been observed to transform into a would-be comet.  
The existence of short period comets suggests that our solar system is less than  10,000 years old: otherwise they would have burned out long ago. 22
More evidence of a young Universe is given in [url= earth refs.htm]number 21[/url] below.  See also the Astronomy section of the Young Age of Earth and Universe Q&A page on web site.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:   
The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5% every 100 years.  This means  that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and  2900 years ago it was four times as strong.  Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field was 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of  heat  produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth. 23,24,25,26  At the very least this data suggests that life on earth is not much older than about 10,000 years.  
The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented.  This was brought out by a recent NOVA Special.  In fact, at the present rate of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field only 1000 years from now.  And although, the NOVA special suggested that this may simply mean the earth is getting ready for another reversal, this still does not explain the implications for no life on earth only 10,000 years ago.  
In addition, Dr. Humphreys has done much research in this area.  Some of his findings are quoted below.

"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988).  Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction.  Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).
The reversal mechanism of my theory would dissipate magnetic energy, not sustain it or add to it, so each reversal cycle would have a lower peak than the previous one. In the same paper ... I discussed the non-dipole part of the field today, pointing out that the slow (millimeter per second) motions of the fluid today could increase the intensity of some of the non-dipole parts of the field. However, I concluded (that) ... the total energy of the field would still decrease.
Despite these ... answers, skeptics today still use Dalrymple’s old arguments to dismiss geomagnetic evidence. Much of that is probably due to ignorance ..., but some skeptics are still relying on the non-dipole part of the field. They hope that an energy gain in the non-dipole part will compensate for the energy lost from the dipole part.
I said, “hope,” because it appears that since 1967, nobody has yet published a calculation of non-dipole energies based on newer and better data. So that is what I will do below. It turns out that the results quash evolutionist hopes and support creationist models." 27

The earth's magnetic field data presents a major problem for old-earth advocates with regard to the timing of the earth's last reversal, which they believe took place 780,000 years ago.  The problem is that at current rates of decay, only about 10,000  years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface.  This indicates that the accepted date for the earth's last  magnetic reversal is likely incorrect.  Such data forces old earth advocates to either ignore it or to assume that the earth's magnetic field decayed much slower in the past than today. 
This geological evidence also presents problems for those who believe that the earth's rotation could not be reversed -- in a very short time period: which is exactly what had to occur.  Below is a quote from an article onPossible Earth Events.

"It's important to note that in either case of Earth Crust Displacement, reversing Earth's magnetic field means that the magma would be spinning in the opposite direction in relationship to Earth's crust.  Since the direction of rotation in Earth's crust is directly related to the direction of spinning magma, this also means the crust would have to reverse its direction of rotation to realign with the direction of spinning magma.  In other words, Earth's crust would need to reverse rotation from East-West to West-East."
Therefore, if a magnetic pole shift were to occur rapidly, then Earth's crust would also reverse rotational directions rapidly.  The result would be massive displacement of Earth's crust and oceans.
Any sudden movement in Earth’s rotation will result in the oceans moving in the opposite directions until the oceans reach a new equilibrium. If Earth's crust reverses rotation from the west/east direction to the west/east direction, this would result in a wall of water moving towards every western shoreline on the planet. ...
From the above explanation, one can begin to realize how a 180 degree magnetic pole shift would result in Earth's crust actually stopping rotation and then reversing direction. Although this has been referenced in ancient literature, it is an event that few can imagine and one which most scientists would claim is impossible. However, if it does occur, this means the centrifugal force on the surface of Earth will go from 1670 (kilometers/hour) to zero and then back up to 1670 kph in the opposite direction.

Note: one researcher proposed that a comet came very close to the earth in the distant past: something that may explain the above data with regard to the earth's rapid magnetic reversal.  Unfortunately the article called Tectonic Wedge Resonance Theory is no longer online.  
See also: Radiometric Dating, Continental Drift, The Mystery of the Earth's Magnetic Field, and  [url= Evidence on the Ocean Floor]Magnetic Evidence on the Ocean Floor[/url]
8.  Direct Dating of Dinosaur Bones:   

By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras.28According to the geological time chart such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out  between 65 and 220 million years ago.  What is  not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long  periods of time. When evolution-biased scientists say that they "know" such things, they are not being forthright.  For while they may, in fact, believe such things, if  they were honest they would admit that such "dates" assigned to these eras are  highly questionable.   

See Are Dinosaur Bones Millions of Years Old for why dinosaurs probably died out recently.
So how can we date dinosaur bones? 
One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not permineralized or turned into stone. This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way  a mammoth or  Neanderthal  bone is dated.  This has also been done on numerous occasions by various laboratories  in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago.29,30,31  This author discussed this with Prof. Paul LeBlond at the University of British Columbia.  Dr. LeBlond said that any C14 date over 5,000 years is highly questionable.32  Therefore, despite  what "scientists" may assert, 33  we can establish that all mammoths, Neanderthals, or other bones "dated" over 5,000 years by the C14 method are also questionable.  If  we accept any, then we must accept them all: including those that are incompatible with evolution-based "ages" associated with the Geological Time Chart.  
However, the very fact that many thousands of dinosaur bones contain organic material is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in  the recent past.  This is discussed in detail in the sections below.  
See also C-14 Dating of Dinosaur Bone Collagen and C-14 Dating

9A.  Dino Blood & Ancient DNA:  
Before the existence of  supposedly "ancient" organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that "no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years." 34  This prediction was based upon the observed  breakdown of  DNA.  
Not long  after this prediction was made, very old  DNA  started turning up.  For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds, in Idaho, a green magnolia leaf was discovered in strata that was said to be 17 million years old.35  Because it was so fresh-looking and even pliable,  scientists decided to see if any DNA was present.  And to  their  surprise  they discovered that there was: and that it  matched the DNA of modern  magnolia trees.
Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as dinosaur bones,36,37 and insects in amber.38  It was said that the reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay; 39however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful.  Likewise,  scientists say that DNA from the insects was  preserved because they were entombed in amber.
However,  a serious problem arises when we come to the dinosaur bones; for these were not entombed  in amber or clay, but in sandstone.40,41  And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well.  The fact that the outer part of one of  these bones was mineralized 42provides strong evidence that water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones.  The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young.  The fact that the partially  mineralized bone had what looked like red blood cells in it is a  strong  indication that it  is young, probably less than 10,000 years old.43
When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said:

"I got goose bumps,"..."It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone.  But ... I (just) couldn't believe it.  I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all,  are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'" 44Emphasis Added

This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the "scientific" establishment says even more.  For they refuse to consider the likely possibility that the bones are (perhaps) as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have told the public to believe.
Note:  Although it was claimed that  DNA was isolated in the dinosaur bones from Montana and Utah, it was so fragmented that the results have thus far not been replicated.45,46,47 However,  laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of collagen and heme and other organic protein molecules in the tyrannosaurus from Montana -- the one with little round things that looked just like Red blood cells. 48,49
Remember that the ancient DNA from the magnolia leaf discussed above was supposed to last for a maximum of 10,000 years before decaying into inorganic matter.  Therefore, if  the 17 million year old "date" is correct, then scientists were off  by a  factor of  1,700  in  their (observation-based) prediction with regard to the breakdown rate of DNA.  So much for using "science" when it seems to hint that something is amiss with the evolution-based Geological Time Chart.
More recently, DNA has been extracted from two 30-million-year-old insects (a beetle and a bee) that were trapped in amber.  In this case they were off by a factor of 3,000 with regard to the observation-based prediction of  DNA  preservation.  However, the organic dinosaur remains present the greatest difficulty for the "scientific" establishment  to overcome.  This is due to the alleged greater age involved and because of the much greater exposure to the elements.  
Because sandstone and bone are porous,50,51 and because the bones were partially mineralized, it is virtually certain that water could (and did) get to these bones.  Because DNA only lasts for about 10,000 years before it disintegrates, it is likely that  no organic matter at all would survive much longer than 20,000 years. This means that the prediction with regard to how long organic matter can survive was off  by a factor of  over  3,000 or that something is seriously wrong with the evolution based dating system and the geological time chart.  Either the scientific methods used to estimate the  rate of  breakdown of  organic matter are grossly in error, or the great ages associated with these organic remains are off by a factor of over 3,000.  This, coupled with the fact that such unfossilized dinosaur bones can be (and have been) dated by the Carbon 14 method, and yield dates between 10,000 and 50,000 years old, suggests that the great ages promoted by the evolution-believing establishment are in error.  
See also The scrambling continues  and the Links below for more info.
However, even beyond this are the purported 165 million-year-old Ammonites discussed below, with their organic ligaments still intact, that were buried in mud, and the supposedly 300 million year old fossil wood (impregnated with limestone) that still has its organic [url= Material Intact:]wood structure intact[/url].  Then there is the case of bacteria preserved alive in salt crystals for a purported 250 million years.  
Such anomalies strain the credibility of supposedly objective "scientists" who ignore and/or twist the facts (of science) to promote the Story of how they think life might have arose on earth without any intelligence behind it --against impossible odds -- over millions of years.  Even worse: they Demand that our children be taught such things in school as if they were facts.   

In a More recent article, about: "what appears to (be) a soft tissue inside the bone, with what appears to be blood vessels and cells... similar to a stretchy bone matrix", we are told that:

"the tissue... has revealed organic components that somewhat resemblecells and fine blood vessels. The discovery was quite an unexpected one. The leader of the research team Mary Schweitzer had routinely tried dissolving pieces of the bone to understand its mineral composition, when she found something unusual: a transparent filament that closely resembled blood vessels. She even found traces of what appear to be red blood cells, osteocytes (bone-building cells)."  Emphasis Added

The author speculated that the fossilized bone was " ... some 70 million years" (old) and that:

"It is possible that the outer parts of the leg fossilized while the vessels were trapped within mineralized bone and remained intact all these millennia." Emphasis Added

Of course it is also "possible" that the bones are not 70 million years old, but rather a few thousand.   This, however, is unacceptable to those with an evolutionist mindset, since such dates would eliminate any possibility of evolution playing anything other than an extremely minor role in the Creation of life on Earth, and also point toward a Creator/God: something that old-earth believers find very difficult to contemplate without becoming upset.  And so they continue to speculate about how the [url= Closer Look at the Age of the Earth.htm#The]Impossible[/url] just might have took place: a long, long time ago, in a land far away: while ignoring the evidence that strongly suggests that such would simply not happen in trillions of years, even on a so-called suitable planet that was covered with water, and full of Bubblesand lightning: unless an outside Intelligence acted upon and ordered it.   
In other words, the belief that we are a byproduct of Nature is, for all practical purposes, outside the realm of empirical (i.e. observable and testable) science.  Some of these dedicated believers in evolution also claim to believe in God, yet they don't think that the Creator should get much (if any) of the credit for the Creating, but instead Mother nature.  These people think that the words "Creation" and "Creator" must never be mentioned in public classrooms, but rather only such words that support  their beliefs.  
So much for keeping "religion" out of the classroom, while at the same time displaying one's ignorance with regard to what the [url= of Church and State:]Founding Fathers[/url]intended,  and which was practiced for over 200 years in the United States of America.  But that was before the modern age of ignorance, political correctness, and the mass media Agenda of coercing the public to believe in things that are based more on wishful thinking than on empirical and testable science.  Some may say I am ranting but check out the facts for yourself and make up your own mind, rather than simply believing what our left-leaning media says:  i.e. that Creation doesn't require a Creator, but simply blew itself into existence -- in spite of the odds and evidence against such a fairy tale belief.
See also: Evidence that Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together, and Oldest DNA 

9B.  Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones: 

A 1987 article  in the Journal of Paleontology begins with the following statement:


Last edited by Admin on Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:36 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

3 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:34 am


"Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska." 52

What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of  permineralization." 53,54  In other words they are not turned to stone.  In fact,  the people who discovered them didn't report it  for 20 years  because they thought they were bison bones.  Because the bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt," 55and because every year the snow melts and subjects them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself.  See also 8 and 9A above. For more on Dragons and Man living together at the same time seeUnfossilized Dinosaur Bones.  
See also this CBS News story and USA Today article for more on organic dinosaur remains. 

9C.  165 Million Year Old Surprise: 
In May of 1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in "a 'mysterious network' of mud springs on the edge of the 'market town' of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England." 56  What is so interesting about these purportedly 165 million-year-old ammonites is that:

"many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells ... (and) they retain their original... aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] ... The outsides also retain their iridescence ... And ... in the words of Dr. Hollingworth, 'There are shells (that) ... still have their organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old.'!"57,58Emphasis Added

It is a fact that water is a component of mud.  It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place.  Oxidation causes things  to break down: including water by a chemical action called hydrolysis.  These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating fossils.

10.  Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands:   
Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold there that the only "trees" able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59  However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on,  or buried just beneath the surface. 60,61,62
How did they get there?  And more importantly, when did they get there?
It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago. 60,61,62 The scientific data suggests otherwise.  For instance, they are not petrified, 60,61,62 but can be sawed and burned.  In addition, pine cones and needles, and leaves are also preserved in the sandy/silty soil. 60,61,62  Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing 60,61,62--- suggesting that they didn't grow here but were uprooted and later re-deposited (after being transported by a catastrophic event such as a flood).  This is also exactly what happened in to the trees that are at the bottom of Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water.  At some time in the future they may be left standing upright -- looking as if they grew there. 63-70
 In regard to this, Quiring, states:

"During the eruption many trees from the surrounding hillsides were washed into the lake.Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument,  float back and forth with the changing winds.  As some of  the trees sink, roots first, they settle  upright on the lake  floor to  form a  'sunken forest.'" 71

In regard to the preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online article states the following:

"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications.  Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots, etc. Where these are not compressed,they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests ... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991)." Emphasis Added

Although these trees are frozen for most of the year, each summer the snow melts  and for about three months  the temperature  reaches into the 70 degree Fahrenheit range.72  Such warm  temperatures should, under normal conditions, allow decomposition to take place.  One explanation for the remarkable degree of preservation is the suggestion that these trees were "mummified" by being buried under significant amounts of strata, and then, over time, this overlying strata was eroded.  
This is perhaps possible, however, it is also possible that these trees are not millions of years old, but rather only a few thousand.  The fact that the roots of some of these upright trees are missing suggests that they were uprooted by a catastrophe, and transported by water to these islands (perhaps) in the not-too-distant past. Otherwise they would have decayed.
Similar trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old.  For example, in "Cataclysms of the Earth," by Hugh Auchincloss Brown, on page 31, Mr. Brown makes the following comments:

"In certain areas of northern Siberia innumerable tree trunks called by the natives "Adam's wood" and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate, they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe. They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew."   Emphasis Added
"A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe."   Emphasis Added

Velikovski's "Earth in Upheaval" (1955) reported similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of Alaska.
See also Discovery of 260 million year old fossil forest from Antarctica, where we find the following:

"The wood was most interesting to me. In some cases branches were preserved, suggesting that the wood had not been transported far by streams. We found an impression of a piece of bark with a knot preserved clearly – not bad for about 250 million years old! The stumps were not replaced by silica, and thus are not “petrified,” but they have been freeze dried in a way that has preserved the growth rings in some cases. On one tree, we counted 26 annual rings, and it was probably older because not all the growth rings were preserved."  Emphasis Added

For more on these trees and other (supposedly very old) material see:  
Carbon Dating of "Fossil" Wood and Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones.
A Tropical Reptile in the 'Cretaceous' Arctic, by Michael Oard
Sustainability: A Glacial Perspective, Lessons of a 40 Million Year Old Forest, by Richard Jagels
The Oldest Wood in the World  by Carla Helfferich
Axel Heiberg Absurdities and Ellesmere Island Embarrassments from Malaga Bay
Scientists Battle over turf in Arctic land that time forgot by Ed Struzik

11.  Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:   
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere.  The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14.  This means that  the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years.  Thus it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.  In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. 73, 74, 75Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years and others at 100,000but they each pose serious problems for old-earth (i.e. millions or billions of years old) scenarios.  See also [url= %C2%A0Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Very Old Sources:]reference 20[/url] below, and associated Links. 

12.  The Dead Sea:  

The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan  River.  The Dead Sea has a very high salt content.  Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists  have measured the amount of salt added each  year by the  Jordan River; and they  have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea.  From these it  is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on.  Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old. 76,77For more on this subject, Click Here and scroll down. 13.  Niagara Falls:   
Up until the recent past, when the top of  Niagara  Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward  Lake  Erie at the rate of about 4-5 feet per year.  Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet),  this means that the age of  Niagara Falls is  between  7,000 and  8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant.  The age of  North America, is likely the same.78,79,80 For more details see Ian Juby's article on this topic. 14. Historical Records:  
Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that recorded human history goes back 4,600- 5,400 years -- or perhaps even more;  but, according to Froelich Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the "earliest actual recorded date in human history." 81,82,83With regard to the pioneers of the Carbon 14 method of dating and ancient human history, Sylvia Bakerreports what they actually said as follows:


"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method.  He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old.  We learned rather abruptly(that) these ... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.'" 84Emphasis Added

See also How Far Back to the Records Go? 

15.  The San Andreas Fault:  
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America.  It  runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco.  It is said to move from 0.5 to 2 inches per year. 85  How long has it  been moving for?  The answer varies greatly.  Some say it  has moved for tens of  miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86  There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved  12,000  feet; 87 however this too  is questionable since the origin of granite itself  is uncertain.  Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up from the ground.
One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of thePt. Reyes area one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all.  This evidence suggests that this  fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old.  For more details, see Part Two of this series on Continental Drift.

16.  Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:  
Mitochondrial  DNA  is different from nucleus  DNA  in that it  has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90  It  is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90 -- 93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below. 
In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in  the press.  A few years later scientists actually measured  the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and  discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94  This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.  This  greatly  revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve.  Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. 
See also: The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.

17.  Population Growth:  
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years.  If  we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 
See Population Statistics for more details. 

18.  Minerals in the Oceans:  
By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are.  When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years old, 98  
Cherry Lewis, author of The Dating Game, quotes George Becker, one of the foremost American geologists of his day as follows with regard to the amount of salt in the earth's oceans, in relation to what was being added to them each year.

"If the sodium in the ocean has taken 1400 million years to accumulate, the rivers are now bearing to the sea about 14 times the average percent of the past.  It seems quite impossible to find any explanation of such an increase."  p. 65

This data was published around 1910, when the earth was said to be only 1.4 billion years old: meaning that if it were 4.5 billion years old, then the present rate of salt that is added to the oceans each year is over 42 times more than what is required to support the 4.5 billion year "date" that is accepted by many geologists and who claim that 'science' supports their views.  In other words, the current accumulation rate of sodium that's being added to the earth's oceans coincides with a 'date' of less than 100 million years -- assuming that no sodium was present when they were first formed: meaning that this (100 million year) age estimate is a maximum, and thus contradicts the 'accepted' 4.5 billion year date for the earth's age.  At the very least, we can state that the earth's oceans are  likely less than 100 million years old, or less than half of the currently accepted 'date' for the northern half of the Atlantic ocean: the southern half 'date' being only 20 million years old. 
See also The Sea's Missing Salt, 99 by Dr. Steve Austin.

19.  Rapid Mountain Uplift:  
In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article.  In it he discovered that:

"An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale.  In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago.  This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several hundred million years." 100

20.  Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Old Sources: 

Carbon 14 is found in organic materials of all types, including diamonds, coal seams, carbonized wood, unfossilized wood and dinosaur bones.  In fact, that is the problem.  In other words, Carbon 14 is found where it shouldn't be -- if the earth were "billions of years" old.  
In a paper titled Measurable 14C In Fossilized Organic Materials, Baumgardner, Humphreys, Snelling, and Austin concluded that:

"The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years to attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS 14C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of intrinsic 14C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with ‘ages’ from 1-500 Ma (i.e. 1-500 million years ago) as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display 14C levels that are far above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon).  But such levels of intrinsic 14C represent a momentous difficulty for uniformitarianism. A mere 250,000 years corresponds to 43.6 half-lives for 14C. One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 101014C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives worth of decay reduces that number by a factor of 7 x 1014. Not a single atom of 14C should remain in a carbon sample of this size after 250,000 years (not to mention one million or 50 million or 250 million years). A glaring (thousand-fold) inconsistency that... exists between the AMS-determined 14C levels and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238U, 87Rb, and 40K techniques. We believe the chief source for this inconsistency to be the uniformitarian assumption of time - invariant decay rates. Other research reported by our RATE group also supports this conclusion [7, 23, 42]. Regardless of the source of the inconsistency, the fact that14C, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is readily detected throughout the ... half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history is likely incorrect. The relatively narrow range of 14C/C ratios further suggests the Phanerozoic organisms (or the entire fossil-bearing strata of the geological time chart) may all have been contemporaries and that they perished simultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note there are hints that 14C currently exists in carbon from environments sealed from biospheric interchange since very early in the earth history. We therefore conclude the 14C evidence provides significant support for a model of earth’s past involving a recent global Flood cataclysm and ... also for a young age for the earth itself."101Emphasis Added

See also: Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young, 102 and What about Carbon 14 103 
Ma = Million years ago.
pmc = percent modern carbon

21.  Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies:  

Although it isn't well known, the galaxies themselves also provide strong evidence that the Universe itself is less than ONE million years old.  That's because almost all spiral galaxies have Blue stars in them.   And since Blue stars are so bright, it is estimated that they can't be older than one million years.  Therefore, it seems likely that the galaxies themselves cannot be any older than that.   
See: Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation, by Jason Lisle, Ph. D., (Acts & Facts, 9/12, p.16) for more details. 

The structure of spiral galaxies themselves also tells us that they cannot be any older than (a maximum of) about 200 million years old: much less than the 13-14 billion years that old earth proponents claim.  This is because laws of physics dictate that spiral arms should lose their "structure," or spiral arms, in only 4-5turns, but for some reason they don't.  Perhaps this is because they are Young?  
See also What Happened to all the Dark Matter?, 104Exploding Stars point to a Young Universe 105 and our article on The Big Bang of this Five-part series on the Age of the Earth.

22.  Zircons:  
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals.  They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- if the earth were "billions of years old."  Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

[quote]"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons.These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago.Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added 

See also: Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay.

View user profile

4 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:42 am



How old is the earth?

Refuting Evolution
Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Sciencepresents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ ([url= 10.6]Mark 10:6[/url]), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.

The rocks

The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:
Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.

The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.
However, a cataclysmic globe-covering (and fossil-forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3
In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5
So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.
Conversely, how does the ‘slow and gradual’ explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.
The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7-foot (2m) long ichthyosaur (extinct fish-shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.
Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been ‘catastrophic floods’ on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.

Radiometric dating

As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:
Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.

However, the deep time ‘determination’ is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:

An hourglass ‘clock’ tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (‘Parent’) with the amount in the bottom bowl (‘Daughter’).

[list="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'PT Serif'; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; color: rgb(31, 9, 9);"]
[*]We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up-ended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.

[*]The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.

[*]The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.

Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:
For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.

It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.
Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:
It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.


There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The ‘dates’ ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!
What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing ‘dates’ of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10

  • If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12[Update: see also Radiometric dating breakthroughs for more examples of 14C in coal and diamonds, allegedly millions of years old.]
According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from theCreation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma. [Update: it turned out that Assumption 2 was the most vulnerable, with strong evidence that decay rates were much faster in the past.  See the results of their experiments inRadioisotopes & the Age of the Earth volumes 1 and 2.]

Evidence for a young world

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

  • Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14

  • The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15

  • Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16

  • A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17

  • The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18

  • Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actualage.19

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World, by Dr Russell Humphreys.
Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.
Addendum: John Woodmorappe has published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric ‘dating,’ including the ‘high-tech’ isochron method:The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).

Related Articles

Related Media

References and notes

[1]S.A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986; for a simplified article, see K. Ham, I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15(3):14–19, June–August 1993. Return to text.

[2]Don BattenSandy stripesCreation 19(1):39–40, December 1996–February 1997. Return to text.

[3]P. Julien, Y. Lan, and G. Berthault, Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand MixturesJournal of Creation 8(1):37–50, 1994. Return to text.

[4]G. Berthault, Experiments on Lamination of SedimentsJournal of Creation3:25–29, 1988. Return to text.

[5]H.A. Makse, S. Havlin, P.R. King, and H.E. Stanley, Spontaneous Stratification in Granular Mixtures, Nature 386(6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also A. SnellingNature Finally Catches UpJournal of Creation 11(2):125–6, 1997.Return to text.

[6]Carl WielandStones and Bones, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1994).Return to text.

[7]R.A. Kerr, Pathfinder Tells a Geologic Tale with One Starring Role, Science279(5348):175, 9 January 1998. Return to text.

[8]O. Morton, Flatlands, New Scientist 159(2143):36–39, 18 July 1998. Return to text.

[9]S.A. AustinExcess Argon within mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens VolcanoJournal of Creation 10(3):335–343, 1986. Return to text.

[10]A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’ Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, p. 503–525. This document lists many examples. For example, six were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8(2):109–117, April 1970; five were reported by G.B. Dalrymple, 40Ar/36Ar Analysis of Historic Lava Flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6(1):47–55, 1969. Also, a large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt from Nigeria,Nature Physical Science 232(29):60–61, 19 July 1971. Return to text.

[11]A.A. Snelling, Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflictCreation 20(1):24–27, December 1997–February 1998. Return to text.

[12]A.A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogmaCreation 20(4):48–50, September–November 1998. Return to text.

[13]Institute for Creation Research, Acts and Facts 27(7), July 1998. Return to text.

[14]C. WielandSensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57. [Update: seeSquirming at the Squishosaur and the linked articles for more recent evidence of elastic blood vessels in T. rex bones.] Return to text.

[15]D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 113–126; J.D. Sarfati,The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is youngCreation20(2):15–19, March–May 1998. Return to text.

[16]L. VardimanThe Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990);J.D. SarfatiBlowing old-earth belief away: helium gives evidence that the earth is youngCreation 20(3):19–21, June–August 1998. Return to text.

[17]K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.E. Walsh, 1994, p. 175–184; J.D. Sarfati, Exploding stars point to a young universeCreation19(3):46–49, June–August 1998. See also How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? Dr Russell Humphreys himself explains …Return to text.

[18]D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. R.E. Walsh and C.L Brooks, 1990, 79–84; J.D. Sarfati, The moon: the light that rules the nightCreation 20(4):36–39, September–November 1998. Return to text.

[19]S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for EvolutionistsProceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17–33; J.D. Sarfati, Salty seas: evidence for a young earthCreation 21(1):16–17, December 1998–February 1999. Return to text.

[20]Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine; available online from <> (cited 18 February 1999). Return to text.

View user profile

5 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:53 am


Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation

sufficient number of supernovas. A  supernova is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few thousand in existence. --Davies, K. 1994. Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism.

Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out in a "field"
--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 68-70.

Transformation of Sirius B from a red giant star to a white dwarf star within recorded history. This is supposed to take a long time.
--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 67.

Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one would expect all the stars would be the same age.
--Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 7-14.

Spiral Galaxies. Keplerian motion should destroy the arms of a spiral galaxy in one to a few rotations of the galaxy - 200-1000 million years at most. However, a huge number of spiral galaxies still exist.
--Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 15-16.

Star Clusters. Clusters of stars are common, even though they should rapidly break up due to shearing and tidal affects as they rotate around a galaxy's nucleus.
--Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 16.

Moon Dust and Debris - If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Scientists were concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust, but instead very little meteoritic debris was found. In fact, it was estimated that hundreds of feet and even a mile of thickness would be present, however, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67th of the dust and debris has even come from outer space.

Existence of short-period comets - The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence.

Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last. --Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.

Planetary Magnetic Fields - Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any.

Recession of the moon from the earth. The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old. --Huse, S. M. 1993. The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.

Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment. --Hinderliter, H. 1989. The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.

Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun.
--Hinderliter, H. 1989. The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.

Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar system clean of small particles.
--Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 55-64.

Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.
--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 41-45.

Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old craters on the moon.
--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 49-53.

Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for a long time period.

High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.

High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.

Tumbling of asteroid Gaspra. Should have stabilized.

Nuclear Decay: Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago.

Earth's Magnetic Field: Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000 years). This half-life can't be extrapolated back more than about 10,000 years without the field becoming intolerably powerful.

Polonium Halos: Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth.

Helium diffusion: There is insufficient mass of helium in earth's atmosphere to account for 4.6 billion years of radioactive decay. Helium is a by-product of radioactive decay of some elements. It is a noble gas which doesn't combine with any other element, but there is not enough of it to account for the radioactive decay which should have occurred in an old-earth scenario.
In addition, uranium and thorium in zircons produce helium as a by-product of their radioactive decay. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.

Human population growth: If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70-71.

Rapid Oil Formation: It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes.
“Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes.” Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)
" British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..." Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982
Middleton, Holyland, Loewenthal, Bruner, "Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations." The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p. 6-12

Rapid Wood Petrification: Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly.
“A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood.” US Patent & Trademark Office, Patent No. 4,612,050

Argument from tree rings: Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years. --Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.

Absence of large number of human tombs. Humans bury their dead, even in "stone-age" societies, but large numbers of tombs are not found.

Argument from only recent known civilizations. Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old.--Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.

Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old.--Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.

Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old. --Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Agea and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.

Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.

Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.

Sediments in the Ocean. Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.

Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is actually many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For example, all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been washed in in about 62 million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 85-87.

Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled from below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the earth's surface. --Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. pp. 387-389.

Pressure in oil reservoirs. Couldn't have stayed high for millions of years.
--Huse, S. M. 1993. The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Books. pp. 40-41.

Rate of accretion of the earth's crust due to volcanism. Volcanic activity could produce the entire earth's crust in only 1.2 billion years even with no crust to begin with.
--Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88.

Uranium Halos
--Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 62-64.

The geologic column (representing all the earth's observed sedimentary rock) in classical geology represents hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history. Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather than over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young geologic column and a young earth.

Absence of meteorites in the geologic column.
"Counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky suggests that over the past 250 million years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period." New Scientist December 02

--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 25-28.

Polystrate fossils - are fossils which cross multiple geologic layers which were supposedly laid down millions of years apart. Trees trunks are frequently found to cross several layers and even through coal beds showing that these layers formed rapidly. Some polystrate trees are even found upside down providing obvious testiment to catastrophic upheaval.

Rapid Coal Formation - It has been claimed that coal takes millions of years to form, however, in recent laboratory experiments by Dr. George R. Hill and Dr. Don C. Adams at the University of Utah it has been shown that plant matter can be turned into coal in a matter of hours.
GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, "A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted....These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,....were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event." [Six Hours], Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292-296.

Turbidites are evidence of rapid strata formation. These sedimentary rocks result from sediments of turbidity currents and are believed to comprise as much as 50% of the geological column, and approximately 30 of the deposits visible in the Grand Canyon.

Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks. This implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features could not survive even trivial erosion. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 94-96.

Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes don't account for regional deposits (covering multiple U.S. states, for example). This applies to types of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.

Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed and hadn't hardened into rock. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 106-109.

Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column. Biological activity soon disturbs sedimentary deposits formed by modern catastrophes (hurricanes, floods) but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This implies that the geologic column was buried very deeply very rapidly. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 96-97.

Lack of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil material is seldom found in the geologic column. One would think that the earth had soil layers in the past, and if it was slowly buried, some would be preserved. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 97-98.

Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock layers often show sharp, knife-edge breaks between layers, with no evidence of erosion between. This is not realistic if the layers formed over long periods of time.
--Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 98-100.

Clastic dikes: Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand squeezed up through newer layers of rock. This implies that the sandy older (lower) layer was still soft enough to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a toothpaste tube) through the younger upper layers. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 109-112.

Limited Extent of Unconformities. Much of the geologic column is continuous in its deposition, with no evidence of erosion between layers. This indicates that the process took only a very short time. --Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 103-105.

View user profile

6 Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth on Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:09 pm


Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

According to the conventional geologic time-scale, organic materials older than about 250,000 years should be utterly 14C “dead.” This is because the half-life of 14C, only 5,730 years, is so short. 250,000 years of decay (corresponding to 43.6 half-lives) reduces the number of initial 14C atoms by a factor of 7 × 10-14. A gram of modern carbon contains about 6 × 1010 14C atoms, so not a single 14C atom should remain after 250,000 years. The astonishing result, however, is that, almost without exception, when tested by accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable and reproducible amounts of 14C! This reality has been established as dozens of AMS laboratories around the world over the last 20 years have sought desperately to understand why organic samples from deep within the geological record, thought to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old, should consistently contain 0.1–0.5% of the modern level of 14C. 

View user profile

7 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:29 pm


List of Problems with Solar System Formation

If the solar system actually were 4.55 billion years old (that third significant digit is added by evolutionists as a psychological device to convince the public of a fictitious precision), by now it should have reached a stasis. Instead, scientists observe a great number of short-lived occurrences (transient phenomena) including:
- Mercury: rapid decline of its magnetic field
- Venus: recent volcanic eruptions and the apparent signficant slowing of rotation
- Earth: rapid decline of magnetic fieldinner core meltingblack smokersrapidly changing "ancient" geologic features
- Moon: cites unexpected heat, dust, molten outer core, volcanism, radon & helium emissions
- Mars: eruption of apparent water vapor plumes to 200 kilometers and outgassing of its moons Phobos and Deimos
- Jupiter: moon Europa erupting and Io giving off 10x more heat than tidal pumping can explain
- Saturn: rings are young and changing and Enceladus is erupting (hear RSR interview former JPL systems administrator)
- Comets: short-period comets (and the Oort cloud will never be found, because it does not exist)
- Asteroids: that outgass, that have six tails, the look like comets, etc., see phys.orgNASAEarthSkyetc.
- TNOs: Trans-Neptunian Objects are thousands of years old because millions of years would have randomized their perihelions

View user profile

8 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:01 pm


My “Top Five” Reasons for Believing in a Young Earth (Part 2 of 6)

Now that I have the scientific philosophy out of the way, it is time to discuss the major data that lead me to believe in a young earth. The first issue is the phenomenon of planetary magnetic fields. We all know that the earth has a magnetic field. It’s what makes the Boy Scout compass needle point north. If we look at the other bodies in the solar system (planets and moons), some have magnetic fields, while others do not. Mars, for example, has no planetary magnetic field. It has some residual magnetism (which is important), but there is no significant planetary magnetic field. Mercury, on the other hand, has a magnetic field (which is also important).

Scientists have been studying the earth’s magnetic field since 1835, and since that time, its strength has been decaying. Also, it appears that at least a few times in the past, its poles have reversed. Most likely, then, at some points in the past, the Boy Scout compass needle pointed south.

What causes the earth’s magnetic field? Pretty much everyone agrees that it is the result of electrical currents that occur in the core of the earth. Just as a current-carrying wire produces a magnetic field, electrical currents in the core of the earth produce the earth’s magnetic field.

What causes those electrical currents? There’s the sticking point. There are those who think differences in local temperatures in the liquid outer core of the earth coupled with the earth’s rotation cause the currents. A small minority of scientists think that the electrical current started because of the spin alignment of the molecules in the earth at the time of creation. As the molecules relaxed, this would reduce their combined magnetic field, and the resulting change in flux would produce electrical currents in the core.

If you don’t understand all that, don’t worry. Here is the key. There are two basic ideas of how the earth’s magnetic field formed. The first idea I mentioned, the dynamo theory 1, assumes it is the result of processes that are currently happening. The second idea I mentioned, the rapid-decay theory 2, assumes it is the result of the method by which the earth was created. Both assumptions result in detailed mathematical models that can be used to predict the magnetic field of the earth as well as the magnetic fields of other bodies in the solar system.

How do these models compare to the data? Well, the dynamo theory doesn’t do well at all. For example, if you “massage” the model so you get the right magnetic field for the earth, it is wrong for most of the other planets. For example, the dynamo theory predicts that Mercury should have no magnetic field. However, it does. 3 Alternatively, Mars has no planetary magnetic field (or an incredibly weak one), but the dynamo theory says it should have one that is on the same order of magnitude as that of earth. 4

The rapid-decay theory, however, has enjoyed an enormous amount of success in relationship to the data. First, when you “massage” the theory so that earth’s magnetic field is predicted correctly, the theory then correctly predicts the magnetic fields of all the planets of the solar system. This is particularly impressive because two of the magnetic fields (the ones for Neptune and Uranus) were predicted several years before they were measured. 2 Once the measurements were made, the rapid-decay theory’s predictions were correct. The dynamo theory’s predictions were NOT.

In a similar vein, in 1984, the rapid-decay theory was used to predict that volcanic rocks from Mars should show that even though there is no significant planetary magnetic field now, there was one in the past. Well, the data from igneous rocks on Mars do, indeed, indicate that Mars did have a planetary magnetic field, even though it doesn’t have a significant one today. 5

Finally, the rapid-decay theory predicts that all planets’ magnetic fields decay over time. We have seen that with earth’s magnetic field, but that’s because we have been measuring it for neary 200 years. Most planets’ magnetic fields have been relatively recently measured, but Mercury’s magnetic field (the one the dynamo theory says shouldn’t exist) was measured back in 1975. NASA sent another unmanned probe back to Mercury, and though it has not settled into stable orbit yet, it has passed by Mercury. Long before that happened, the rapid-decay theory was used to predict what this unmanned probe would measure, and once again it was correct. 6

So what’s the point here? The ONLY theory of planetary magnetic fields that comes close to being consistent with the data is the rapid-decay theory. Not only can it accurately reproduce all the known planetary magnetic fields in the solar system, it predicted two of them before they were measured. In addition, before it was known, the rapid-decay theory predicted that Mars would show signs of having once had a planetary magnetic field. In addition, it predicted what the new Mercury probe would measure before it happened.

This theory of planetary magnetic fields is everything that you want from a scientific theory. It explains why planets have magnetic fields, and it predicts data that have not yet been measured. When those data are finally measured, the theory’s predictions turn out to be correct. Well, a consequence of this incredibly successful theory is that the earth and the solar system cannot be more than 10,000 years old. That’s a result of the mathematics.

Thus, the ONLY theory of planetary magnetism that successfully predicts the data REQUIRES that the earth and the solar system be very young.


1. Paul Demorest, “Dynamo Theory and Earth’s Magnetic Field”, 2001,
Return to Text

2. D. Russell Humphreys, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields”, CRSQ 21,1984,
Return to Text

3. E. N. Parker, “Magnetic fields in the cosmos,” Scientific American, 249:44-54 , 1983
Return to Text

4. Michael Zeilik, Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, p. 188 , Cambridge University Press, 2002
Return to Text

5. Connerney, J.E.P., et al., “Magnetic lineations in the ancient crust of Mars”, Science 284:794-798, 1994
Return to Text

6. D. Russell Humphreys, ” Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!”,
Return to Text

View user profile

9 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:08 pm


Critics of the Bible, both atheist and theist, throughout history have used all sorts of arguments and excuses to avoid believing what the Bible is quite clear on, just as the Jews of old. And it's happening on many issues today.

Below are some helpful lectures by many scientists, some of them formerly Darwinians or OEC.

One of the key issues is this:
"The flood wipes away millions of years from the geological record." Marcos Ross, University of Rhode Island, in the brilliant documentary Evolution's Achilles Heels.

The radiometric assumptions ignore the Bible's claims of a catastrophe happening and are based on the assumptions of gradualism, which are just utter poppycock and pseudoscience.

1) An improved overview of Dr. Walter Brown's "Hydroplate Theory" documentary (~10 minutes)

2) "Rapid Rocks" Dr Tas Walker (short 2 minute clip on how a rock with a model car inside it, found on a beach in Brisbane

Our Created Solar System: This is a scientific presentation by Spike Psarris, a NASA scientist who was an atheist Darwinian but became a creationist first because of the vast scientific evidence which refuted all the materialist claims about origins. AFTER that he became a Christian. He goes through the materialist claims to explain the origin of the planets in our solar system and how some were popular for some time. Then he shows how they were debunked by scientific progress and new findings. He shows the pitiful excuses they make to reject the majority of evidence that powerfully points to creation and shows the fallacious basis of materialist "reasoning". ALL materialistic explanations in this area as with many others have comprehensively failed and been falsified by science. Psarris shows how the vast majority of evidence points to a young created solar system. 

A simple example of this is that Venus is similar in size and appears to be similar in age to the earth. So by materialist "reasoning" it should have similar composition and be a good place for life to get started. But this is of course completely untrue. 

~20:00 Psarris talks about how magnetic fields in the solar system can't be old.
A bit later he talks about the problem of the origin of water. Creationists of course say that God created water on the earth originally. Darwinians claimed that it originated from comets. But there's a lot of deuterium in water from comets, while there is almost none in earth water. So this claim doesn't match the evidence. 
There are 163 moons...but only earth's moon is at the right place and distance for solar eclipses.
~52:00 Psarris investigate the evidence that secular scientists claim. It is often a lot worse than they claim or absent.


Neil Tyson Degrasse did this repeatedly in his series on Cosmos 
Cosmos Scrubs Religion's Positive Influence from the History of the Scientific Revolution

See this example as well. Neil's Tyson Degrasse and a myriad of others.

1) Geology and Deep Time (strong evidence for a global flood) by Dr. Emil Silvestru 
Dr. Silvestru, Ph.D in geology from ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he was associate professor),is a world authority on the geology of caves, published 41 scientific papers & 1 book (The Cave Book) & co-authored two books. He was for years the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute. His seminar summarizes the vast evidence for a global flood with many scientific citations from major secular journals and also with well done illustrations. This is one of the best overviews of the vast evidence supporting a global flood. (Start at 36:00. ~54:00 deals with how catastrophic plate tectonics supports the global flood).

2) "Creation Geology: The Key To Unraveling Earth History": By former Darwinian geologist who found that his secular textbooks were cherry picking data to fit an agenda and that the full evidence in geology fits creation science much better.

3) This is very informative documentary by Dr. Snelling on plate tectonics and how it can only work with a young earth model.

4) A Deluge Of Evidence: Noah's Flood and The Historical Roots of Secularism: This documentary is at a quite easy level. It shows how the founders of modern geology, Hutton and Lyell, were severely biased against creation and tried to exclude it from consideration. It summarizes some of the evidences for the flood simply. Then in the last section it cites some outrageous examples of censorship and demeaning insults towards creationists and how gradualism has set science backwards. There is a great quote at ~45 by a Darwinian about how Lyell sold geologists snake oil against catastrophism. 

See also:

6) "The key to the age of the earth argument"

7) "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: The Earth's Young After All" An overview of evidence for a young earth, esp. some of the RATE project results.

8)The Ice Age: Only the Bible Can Explain It: Well done overview of how secular speculations don't fit the scientific data.

This is one of the more interesting ones, but quite technical.

9) "Hydroplate Theory: The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity"

Hydroplate Theory Overview

This is quite technical scientific documentary by a mechanical engineer working in the aerospace and defense industry. He gives solid evidence that tectonic plate movement and well known scientific factors would probably cause heat in the millions of degrees. This would destroy the Darwinian calibrations. If the flood is considered and fair calibrations made, it would fit very well with young earth calculations. See esp. minutes 7-10+ and 25-35+. 

Regarding physics, I'm weaker in that area than some other science, and this is a bit above my understanding...but this summarizes what some with expertise in that area are saying: 

From 20+ Nickel shows how a global flood and radioactivity rates are related but have almost nothing to do with age. The violent movement of tectonic plates acting on granite which is the main rock all over the planet. Granite has up to 27% quartz in it. If quartz is stressed, it creates electrical phenomenon. This is an example of a piezoeletric effect. Eyewitnesses around the world have seen lightning, flames and other effects after earthquakes. The types of cracks that we see in the crust into each other due to flutter sort of like airplanes while flying during earth quakes and produce unique cracks as a result of tension and bending. 

This fluttering/tension/bending caused powerful plasmas arcing within the plates and extremely high temperatures of ~630 million degrees that were enough to melt a few millimeters of rock. The plasma strips elements of electrons. The granite elements were vaporized and stripped and caused nuclear fusion. The rock walls expanded and rebounded like a super charged spring and fused nuclei in many places along plasma paths, producing all sorts of super heavy elements and their isotopes. These elements are relied upon as clocks and evidence of millions of years even though they were created almost instaneously.

Some people claim that a rapid increase in temperatures and changes in radioactive decay would have melted the entire crust and caused the annihilation of all life. But Bryan Nickel shows why while there are tremendous temperatures, they are not all transferred to the surroundings as is assumed from ~29:00+. He cites an academic article about how "in the zone of the self-organized collapse, we are faced with the process of a distinctive "cold repacking" of nucleons which initially belonged to nuclei of the target. This process terminates in the final configuration which corresponds to newly synthesized isotopes...the process is adiabatic (meaning little heat is transferred to the surroundings)." Adamenko, "Full-Rang Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory," Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4

Nickel shows how the crust diffuses heat in various ways similar to how engines do with fins and so would only melt a small part of the crust and not melt the entire crust or endanger life on the surface. The extreme heat would though produce supercritical water with high levels of deuterium and oxygen18. Some of these were at different times blasted into space. Scientists have often wondered why many comets show signs of being melted with intense heat and high levels of deuterium even though they are in cold space. Hydroplate explains this better than anything else.

View user profile


Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating

As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object. This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars. In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old. In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 + 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years. That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.
Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis. Most likely, that is the least important source of error. If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination. This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire. Their age was measured to be 6.0 +/- 0.3 billion years old. Do you see the problem? Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old. Obviously, then, the minimum error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!
Such uncertainties are usually glossed over, especially when radioactive dates are communicated to the public and, more importantly, to students. Generally, we are told that scientists have ways to analyze the object they are dating so as to eliminate the uncertainties due to unknown processes that occurred in the past. One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an isochron. However, a recent paper by Dr. Robert B. Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered.

View user profile

11 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:39 am


Only at the outskirts of the Milky Way, at more than 10 kpc from the galactic center, this probability drops below 50%. When considering the Universe as a whole, the safest environments for life (similar to the one on Earth) are the lowest density regions in the outskirts of large galaxies and life can exist in only ≈ 10% of galaxies. Remarkably, a cosmological constant is essential for such systems to exist. Furthermore, because of both the higher GRB rate and galaxies being smaller, life, as it exists on Earth, could not take place at z > 0.5. Early life forms must have been much more resilient to radiation.

View user profile

12 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:41 pm


Danny Faulkner, A Universe by design, page 103

Exodus 20:11 states “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh.” This was written in the context of the command to observe the Sabbath. It is obvious that the Hebrews’ workweek was six days. If the model that the Hebrews were to follow was the creation week, then it makes no sense that the days were long periods of time. The exegesis of day-age gets a little weird here, for it would lead to the nonsensical statement that first the Lord created in six time periods, and then much later He used this motif when giving the Law to the ancient Hebrews to hold His people to a very strict and literal interpretation of the demands of a seven-day week, but the model upon which it was based is to be taken rather loosely. This brings us to another objection to the day-age theory. When the modern version of the day-age
theory began to be developed in the 19th century, it was hoped that the days of creation could be matched to geological ages. However, when one carefully compares the details of what modern science says about the history of the earth with the biblical creation account, one finds that there are marked differences. For instance, not only were plants created before the sun (the third day as opposed to the fourth day), but also the plants that are specifically mentioned are flowering plants, plants that according to evolution appeared very late, after the time of many of animals created on days 5 and 6. There are many other examples. Given that the events of the six days of creation cannot be matched to the order of events that science professes, the original attempt to match creation days with geologic ages has utterly failed. However, the proponents of the day-age theory press onward anyway. How do these people propose to do this?

View user profile

13 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:32 am


The Book of Genesis Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, page 73 1

One more point needs to be discussed before dealing with the actual six days of creation relative to the Hebrew word for “day,” which is yom. People who want to fit Genesis 1 into evolutionary and geological theories try to claim that the word yom does not have to mean twenty-four hours but could mean a longer period of time, even millions of years. Now it is true that when the word yom is used by itself it could mean a longer period of time (though no example exists where it means millions of years). For example, the Day of Jehovah is a period of seven years. However, whenever the word is used with a number or numeral, it always means twenty-four hours.
Throughout Genesis 1, each time the word day is found; it is used with a numeral: day one, day two, etc. This alone shows that the days of Genesis are twenty-four hour days. However, there is more: Not only is the word day followed by a numeral, it is also followed by the phrase evening and morning, and this phrase again limits it to twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the Sabbath law, as given to Israel in the Law of Moses, is based upon the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest. These laws would become meaningless if these were not twenty-four hour days. Finally, with the fourth day, there is the mention of days, years, signs, and seasons, showing that already
within Genesis 1 there is the normal system of time in operation. These terms also would become meaningless if these were not normal twenty-four hour days. By itself, Genesis 1:2 says nothing insofar as it being an old earth or a young earth, and the evidence for one or the other must be based on arguments outside this verse. However, the six days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days.


View user profile

14 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:57 pm


Another important fact to keep in mind is that the Moon is gradually moving away from Earth, exactly at a rate of 3.8 centimeters, or one inch and a half, per year. This can be scientifically proven today thanks to the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflectors that Apollo mission’s astronauts left on the lunar surface, just firing a laser beam towards these reflectors and precisely measuring the distance. The importance of this fact is that if we go backwards in time, the moon would be more and more close to the Earth, reaching a point when, billions of years ago, the Moon must have been really close to our planet; so close that it could have been appreciated in the sky with enough level of detail to count even the smaller craters (so bad that in those times there was no humans on Earth to appreciate that spectacular show).

So, if we consider that the actual gravitational pull of the moon create the tides, even with the moon being so far away from Earth, then billions of years ago, when the Moon was so close to our planet, the tides produced in the interaction between this two bodies must have been really huge. Incredibly large waves of water would have covered hundreds of miles of the surface. If the tides of our times reach up to tens of meters high, in those early days that height would have been of tens of kilometers. The colossal waves of the early Earth would swept large areas of the ground, dragging in the process high amounts of minerals and chemicals into the ocean depths. This diversity of chemicals and minerals, agitated by the extreme tides, exposed to very high amounts of radiation and energy received from the sun, after millions of years of reactions and interactions, would have form a primordial soup of organic molecules. Once this molecules gain complexity, this would lead to the formation of amino acids, which are the main functional block of proteins, and these occupy a place of utmost importance among the constituent molecules of living organisms and play a key role in life.

View user profile

15 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:31 pm


- at the current rate of erosion the entire earth would have been eroded flat several times over in the long age model
- the magnetic field has been decaying for as long as we have been measuring it. Using uniformitarian assumptions, back millions of years ago the earth's field would have been so strong as to melt it.
- the moon is receding from the earth Millions of years ago it would have been close enough to have been captured by the earth's gravity
- the rate of salination and desalination of the earth's waters don't match where they should be in long ages
- the human genome is decaying at an approximate rate of 100-300 inheritable mutations per generation. To paraphrase one prominent evolutionary geneticist 'why haven't we gone extinct several times over?
- every single member of the famous 'monkey parade' is classified either as an ape or human. Nothing in between
- living fossils, punctuated equilibrium, stasis, homology, homoplasy, and so on are just-so stories fabricated to explain the data which don't match the evolutionary hypothesis
- magnetic fields in planets which should not have them
- the Cambrian explosion, as mentioned
- soft tissue, proteins, and DNA in over 40 dinosaur bones - not fossils
- c14 (or 14c, depending on how you want it) found in coal, diamonds, and bones, when NONE should exist even if they're 'only' 100,000 years old
- comets (as you mentioned)
- flat gaps (such as between the Hermit Shale and Coconino Sandstone) extend for hundreds of miles, undisturbed by any signs of erosion, animal burrows, etc
- Sloan Sky Survey indicates concentric circles (likely spheres) of galaxies roughly centred on our galaxy
- virtually all of the fossil record has been buried by water-borne sediment in a catastrophic event
- planation surfaces, erosional remnants, water gaps, and many other geological features defy long-age explanations, but are often well-explained with an understanding of global flood dynamics
- radiometric dating has given wildly erroneous ages for rocks of known age, and the SAME rocks tested with different methods have yielded wildly different ages as well
- the MZT (maternal to zygote transition) effectively prevents the child from taking over its own development until a certain stage has been reached. Also, the 'framework' for the 'grandchild' is transferred with similar protection, such that evolution could not possibly work, as changes are required in successive generations. This also applies to plants
- historical records of all European people groups trace their ancestry back to the sons of Noah
- some 400-500 cultures have similar flood stories around the world
- thousands of artifacts, sculptures, carvings, and drawings indicate dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans
- Marco polo describes what sounds a lot like a T-Rex
- Japanese and Hebrew letter forms bear striking resemblances
- ancient Chinese characters support a flood narrative, and a creation account, built right into their letter forms
- the origin of languages is a huge mystery for long-agers, but entirely supports a post-flood dispersion and confusion of languages as described at Babel

View user profile

16 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:52 am


 I've got a lot of scientific evidence that may help you. There are at least 200 dating methods that point to a young earth, while there are only ~40 that point to an old earth. The 40 make huge unwarranted assumptions, mostly based on the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism. The young earth methods make a few assumptions too, but much better ones. Mathematically and scientifically, the young earth wins if one is objective. However, I don't believe in a young universe since the Hebrew for sky in Genesis can refer to this earth and it's atmosphere/surroundings or the universe or heaven where God lives, only one of those or all three. I do think the earth is young for hundreds of reasons and the universe is extremely old...maybe trillions of years old for a lot of reasons, biblical and scientific.

Genesis does give some indications of a young earth, although I think Exodus is better. God states clearly that He made the world in 6 days, and gives the Sabbath every week as a memorial to that. This is the sole and only memorial to God's act of creation in the Bible and also has connections to many other crucial doctrines through creation and on its own. 

Exodus 20:8-11 (NLT)
8 “Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 You have six days each week for your ordinary work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Jesus told us that the Sabbath was made by God...and Exodus identifies when. So that's pretty clear that it was a literal 7 day creation.

Mark 2:27 (NLT) 
Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath. 

Then we have the chronologies that go from Adam onwards, leaving very little room for an old earth

This is probably the shortest video on it with the best graphics and some pretty significant evidence that supports a young earth.
Flood Geology by AIG

Add to that that even Darwinians like Dr. Allmon are admitting that a priori materialist assumptions that Hutton and Lyell used have harmed and caused much damage to science and that it is snake oil...and you have a pretty good case for a young earth already right there.

"As is now increasingly acknowledged, however, Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that...all past processes acted at essentially their current rates...This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual." Warren D Allmon, Direction of the PaleontologicalResearch Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earthand Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, "Post Gradualism",Science, vol. 262, p. 122, October 1, 1993.

View user profile

17 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:53 am


Almost all dating methods are based on uniformitarian extrapolations and ignore the reality that geology has massively changed in recent decades to recognize that catastrophism is doesn't just happen in many cases, it's a very major reality that has huge implications on dating estimates, sometimes changing them by a billion fold. Some are more stable and likely to be more accurate than others. Some though, such as most radiometric methods, are quite unstable and can be easily distorted at severe levels by fire, volcanoes and numerous other factors. They also require many assumptions. If these assumptions are in error in even small ways, the results can be drastically in error, as in millions or even billions of years.

Dr. William Libby, who won a Nobel prize for helping pioneer Carbon 14 dating methods, said this about it. 
“Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions 
1) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 
2) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 
3) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death; 
4) Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 
5) There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 
6) Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 
7) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. 

Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact.” Willard F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p: 8, 10, 19-31

Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact.” Willard F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p: 8, 10, 19-31

Read that again and memorize it:
"Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact.”

If you think Dr. Libby's article is too old, here's a more modern Darwinian site that agrees that several assumptions must be used for radiometric dating techniques.

"Radiocarbon dating depends on several assumptions. One is that the thing being dated is organic in origin. Radiocarbon dating does not work on anything inorganic, like rocks or fossils. Only things that once were alive and now are dead: bones, teeth, flesh, leaves, etc. The second assumption is that the organism in question got its carbon from the atmosphere. A third is that the thing has remained closed to C14 since the organism from which it was created died. The fourth one is that we know what the concentration of atmospheric C14 was when the organism lived and died.

That last one is more important than it sounds. When Professor William Libby developed the C14 dating system in 1949, he assumed that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was a constant. However, after a few years a number of scientists got suspicious of this assumption, because dates obtained by the C14 method weren’t tallying with dates obtained by other means. A long series of studies of C14 content produced an equally long series of corrective factors that must be taken into account when using C14 dating. So the dates derived from C14 decay had to be revised. One reference on radiometric dating lists an entire array of corrective factors for the change in atmospheric C14 over time. C14 dating serves as both an illustration of how useful radiometric dating can be, and of the pitfalls that can be found in untested assumptions."

Dr. Robert E. Lee, published this on the accuracy of radiometric dating:
"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs…Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? 

"Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow better—both to layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."... 
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There 'are' gross discrepancies, the chronology is 'uneven' and 'relative', and the accepted dates are actually 'selected' dates. 

"This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}" "Radiocarbon: ages in error" in the Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. 

Some problems have been corrected over time...but there are still many serious assumptions involved and just like scientists in the past were wrong or unaware of extra factors and problems, it's surely true of scientists these days as well. 

Here's a more modern Darwinian site that agrees that assumptions still must be used.
"Radiocarbon dating depends on several assumptions. One is that the thing being dated is organic in origin. Radiocarbon dating does not work on anything inorganic, like rocks or fossils. Only things that once were alive and now are dead: bones, teeth, flesh, leaves, etc. The second assumption is that the organism in question got its carbon from the atmosphere. A third is that the thing has remained closed to C14 since the organism from which it was created died. The fourth one is that we know what the concentration of atmospheric C14 was when the organism lived and died.

That last one is more important than it sounds. When Professor William Libby developed the C14 dating system in 1949, he assumed that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was a constant. However, after a few years a number of scientists got suspicious of this assumption, because dates obtained by the C14 method weren’t tallying with dates obtained by other means. A long series of studies of C14 content produced an equally long series of corrective factors that must be taken into account when using C14 dating. So the dates derived from C14 decay had to be revised. One reference on radiometric dating lists an entire array of corrective factors for the change in atmospheric C14 over time. C14 dating serves as both an illustration of how useful radiometric dating can be, and of the pitfalls that can be found in untested assumptions."

It becomes especially problematic when dates that don't match the accepted ideology are frequently discarded. That's like assuming that the phlogistan ideology must be true and discarding everything that doesn't match it.

View user profile

18 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:53 am


Some dating methods are a bit like estimating how long a candle has been burning upon entering a room where one sees a candle burning. How can you tell how long it’s been burning? You don’t know what the starting height was. You don’t know if it wascontinuously burning or if it stopped burning for was used several times at several birthday parties. You don't know whether it was always in the same location. You don’t know how fast or how slowly it was burning at every point in history. You can make some estimates based on assumptions. But, these guesses will not be solid guesses. Their validity depends largely on how close your asumptions gambled and matched reality. 

Another comparison would be someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. We know the Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method. It’s for precisely the same reason that some uniformitarian dating methods both young and old are highly questionable unless corroborated from history by something of a known age or something really solid like that.

Evolutionists keep on finding examples like this that keep on throwing cold water on their long held presuppositions: 
Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as
short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by
bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years
to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

This is the same problem that all uniformitarian methods have whether they are used by evolutionists or creationists. Scientific things must be checked by experiments where they can be repeated and retested. You can’t redo and retest history. The only way to check the accuracy of dating ages would be to have something that you are certain is 1 million years old and test against that. But, we don’t have anything that we are sure is 1 million years old or more to test against. 

Scientists do try to check the ages with different tools: such as geomagnetism evidence, the growth rate of stalagmites and stalagtites, etc. but the calibrations of mother and daughter elements to definite ages can be based on either a creationist worldview or a evolutionary worldview which causes extremely different results, not to mention the wildly differing results that even evolutionists on their own often get, even from the same sample sent to different laboratories. It’s not hard to assign dates based on one philosophy to decay levels and ratios in different systems and get superficially similar results. But, if evolutionists are the ones assigning the dates to element levels, they will appear uniform because of their apriori commitments to evolution, NOT because the science actually says how old the rocks are (this is especially true after it goes through lots of trial and error to get the calibrations to line up). If I got creationists to assign the dates for C14, potassium-argon, etc., I could EASILY get them all to line up in favor of creation by assigning creationist ages to the different element levels.

There are so many assumptions that are required in these dating & these gigantic assumptions are often proven seriously wrong by the evidence in cases like this:

Another site lists 17 problems with dating methods (some of these may need to be confirmed with an expert…and I haven’t done that yet, unlike the above 11 assumptions.):
1. No rock in the world is a closed system. They all can be, and probably have been, contaminated
2. Decay rates could have been different in the past. Under varying conditions, we have already found evidence of change in the present—and Joly found changes in the past
3. Daughter products could easily have been present in the beginning. An original intermingling of such products would nullify present attempts to date by daughter products
4. Unknown changes in our past environment could ruin the narrowly drawn assumptions. There is no way of knowing exactly what each local past environment was like
5. High energy particles, nearby radioactive minerals or contact with certain chemicals could earlier have significantly altered decay rates
6. Earlier changes in the atmosphere would have greatly affected decay rates. No one knows whether the earlier atmosphere was identically like our present one
7. The decay clocks did not have to start at the beginning of their chains. Daughter products could have been present in the beginning
8. Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. It is only an assumption that all the lead could only be an end-product
9. Common Lead 9 (PB-209) could have been mixed in. This would also seriously affect the dating
10. Leaching could easily have occurred in past time. Passing solutions could have carried away portions of daughter products
11. Comparisons of lead ratios could be inaccurately made. This could damage test results in five ways
12. Any earlier change in the Van Allen belt would have decidedly affected decay rates. —And we have only known of this high-atmospheric belt since 1959
13. Free neutrons could be captured from neighboring lead 206. Most radiogenic lead on earth could have been produced by neutron capture
14. If the earth had originally been molten, this would have resulted in wide variations of rock settings. Intense heat damages radiodating clock settings
15. Uranium dates, thorium dates, and all the other dating methods always disagree with one another. This itself is strong evidence of the unreliability of the various methods
16. Some of the daughter products (such as argon) are gases which easily migrate out of the rocks. Why then are these daughter products relied on for dating purposes? Also see this section for many informative quotes on the problems with dating systems:

Additionally you need to make these assumptions:
1) There were no major disasters, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods or other such things that would hugely distort the results. More accurately, you have to assume that there is a closed system with no input or output during the lifespan of the rock, no change at all. This is quite a disputable assumption since even evolutionists say that changes can happen (maybe rocks evolve LOL ).
2) You must assume how much of the element/material there was at the beginning. How much of the daughter elements were already there to begin with? This has to be assumed.
3) You must assign certain years to the mother/daughter elements that you find, since the rocks don't tell you years.
4) Fractionation (redistribution) of isotopes occurs all the time. Fractionation has most of the time not been taken into account for the starting material: it is assumed that the starting material is representative for the abundance of the isotope at the time.

View user profile

19 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:54 am



There are over 200 geochronometers that demonstrate a recent creation of the earth. There are maybe ~40 that point to an old earth, although
 some of them have been discredited due to numerous known mistakes and the number is shrinking.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a former Darwinian, says "Ninety percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists." Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, cited in Bruce Malone, "Creation Scientists Are Abundant," Search for the Truth, p. V-16 (Search for the Truth Ministries, 2001)

If it was in ANY other field, that would constitute proof for YEC. BUT SOLEY and ONLY because it points to creation science, the secular world refuses to follow the normal way that science is done and follows blatant and willful fraud instead. Yes, it is blatant fraud and predicted in the Bible that they would deliberately reject the evidence for the flood and creation in 2 Peter 3, which of course is connected to the age of the earth.

The 200 methods are much more reliable than the ~40 old earth geochronometers for several reasons such as these:
1) The old earth methods are based on the a priori assumptions that Darwinism is true and there are no competing views, even though every view of universal common descent has been falsified after some time of being popular and deceiving many people. This pattern goes back to Greek times and is continuing in the present. 
2) There are numerous assumptions that Darwinians use that are calibrated to line up with and "prove" Darwinism. They for example claim that radiometric decay rates are constant when we have found that they can sometimes vary quite significantly. And if they are not constant, even small changes can shift ages by not just millions but even billions of years in some cases.
3) When dating ages that conflict with Darwinism are found, they are thrown in the garbage. Some of the strongest geochronometers that have few if any discrepancies are the young earth ones, such as plutonium halos mentioned above.
4) Many fossils, such as dinosaur fossils, have been found to have soft tissue in them. Soft tissue can't survive more than 15-100,000 years based on all currently known laws of science, and that's if they are tightly sealed which doesn't usually happen in nature. So, they can't be old.
5) Water leaches out elements that are used in calculating ages. If a worldwide flood happened, that would massively reduce the expected ages.
6) We have numerous examples where old earth methods dating things of known ages very wrongly, as in claiming that volcanic rocks known to be only a few decades old were dated into the millions and billions of years. 

Many people have different views about the age of the earth? What is the truth? Well as the Bible, Darwin and others all agree, we have to collect ALL evidence from all sources and figure out which has the most evidence. Then that is what rational people consider true. It's because heliocentrism had more evidence overall than geocentrism that it won. That's why all of objective views in science that we have now won their case and are considered true. If the same principle is followed as was followed with Einstein and heliocentrism, then a young earth is the only valid conclusion of the current evidence. Every single scientific field on the planet finds truth in this way. Only when the topic is creation science or something else that is taboo to the establishment do they start using double standards and follow the least amount of evidence as true instead of the most, which is no different from advocating geocentrism or a flat earth in 2016 (it's not surprising that the head of the flat earth society is a Darwinian). Here is a review of only some of the evidence.
Dr. Grady, another former Darwinian, has books and documentaries that gives an overview of over 200 geochronometers that point to a young earth. 

The methods that point to an old earth are almost always based on the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism that predetermines that all conclusions must line up with materialist processes regardless of the evidence.

It should be made clear that there are many methods and they point to many different dating ranges. Here are a few.

Dr. Morris looked at various rates for the earth based on uniformitarian processes. These are some that were in a range that is similar to the Bible's chronology along with a few that were much younger and older. References for each estimate are given.

Uniformitarian Estimates—Age of the Earth

(Unless otherwise noted, based on standard assumptions of closed systems, constant rates, and no initial daughter components.)

Process Indicated Age of Earth Reference
17. Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers 100 years 1
55. Influx of titanium into ocean via rivers 160 years 18
56. Influx of chromium into ocean via rivers 350 years 18 18
57. Influx of manganese into ocean via rivers 1,400 years 18
15. Influx of lead to the ocean via rivers 2,000 years 
58. Influx of iron into ocean via rivers 140 years 18

4. Development of total human population less than 4,000 years 
32. Decay of C- 14 in pre-Cambrian wood 4,000 years 
38. Growth of oldest living part of biosphere 5,000 years 7
39. Origin of human civilizations 5,000 years 7
40. Formation of river deltas 5,000 years 8
53. Influx of radiocarbon to the earth system 5,000 - 10,000 years 
9. Influx of silicon to the ocean via rivers 8,000 years
72. Accumulation of peat in peat bogs 8,000 years 21
7. Influx of nickel to the ocean via rivers 9,000 years
5. Influx of uranium to the ocean via rivers 10,000 - 100,000 years
27. Decay of earth's magnetic field 10,000 years 4
37. Growth of active coral reefs 10,000 years 7
46. Decay of short-period comets 10,000 years 14

1. Efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere 1,750 - 175,000 years 
6. Influx of sodium to the ocean via rivers 260,000,000 years 1
8. Influx of magnesium to the ocean via rivers 45,000,000 years 
35. Influx of juvenile water to oceans 340,000,000 years 7
36. Influx of magma from mantle to form crust 500,000,000 years 7

Others are in the article.

View user profile

20 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:55 am


CMI has a well done summary of over 100 evidences for a young earth.
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

There is some evidence for a universe that is ~6,000 years old and significant evidence for a universe ~14 billion years old. But in my view, for biblical, scientific, linguistic, and logical reasons, there is more and better evidence for a universe of at least 1 trillion years old or older. I have another article on that.

Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.

Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions (Dr. Walter Brown, Ph.D. from MIT).

View user profile

21 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:55 am


Spike Psarris, a NASA scientist, was an atheist Darwinian but became a creationist first because of the vast scientific evidence which refuted all the materialist claims about origins. AFTER that 
he became a Christian. In this talk, he goes through the materialist claims to explain the origin of the planets in our solar system and how some were popular for a time. Then he shows how they were debunked by scientific progress and new findings and creationist views were confirmed. He references academics who agree that the planets in our solar system shouldn't even exist by materialist reasoning. He shows the pitiful excuses they make to reject the majority of evidence that powerfully points to creation and shows the fallacious basis of materialist "reasoning". ALL materialistic explanations in this area as with many others have comprehensively failed and been falsified by science. Psarris also shows how the vast majority of evidence points to a young created solar system. 

See for starters around minute 20 and how magnetic fields show the solar system can't be old.

He also makes a strong argument in lectures that when there is conflict between different methods, the most logical answer is to take the youngest ones.

View user profile

22 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:56 am


Dr. Grady used to be a Darwinian, but scientific evidence changed his views. He writes:
“Whether you look in the earth, on the earth, or outside the earth in space, there is plenty of evidence to show the earth is young,” argues Dr. Grady McMurty, MS in Evolutionary Theory from State University of New York. 

It's important to look at evidence on all sides to find the truth and not use any fallacies to minimize or exclude any evidence. Here is a very short overview of some of the evidence with links that have more in depth facts on this topic.


There are over 200 scientific Geochronometers (earth time clocks/universe time clocks) that indicate that the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are young, much too young for evolution to be a possibility. A few examples of these are as follows:

1. The rapid decay of the earth’s magnetic field
2. The existence of high pressure natural gas contained within sedimentary (porous) rock layers
3. The existence of Short-period Comets
4. The rapid heat loss of the earth and moon
5. The rapid recession rate of the moon
6. The “lumpy” rings of Saturn, Neptune and Uranus
7. The existence of Barred Spiral Galaxies
8. The rapid continental erosion rates
9. The salt content of the oceans
10. There is too much Helium contained within the earth’s crustal rocks
11. The accumulation of about 4,500 years of sediments at the mouths of all major rivers
12. The active volcanoes on Jupiter’s moon Io, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus
13. The existence of Thorium 230 and Uranium 236 on the surface of the moon
14. The annual addition on average of one cubic mile of Juvenile Water to the earth’s surface
15. Fresh dinosaur blood and flesh have been found inside T. rex bones
16. There are far too few Supernovas in the universe
17. The existence of millions of tightly folded unbroken sedimentary rock layers around the world
18. The scarcity of meteorites in the sedimentary rock layers containing fossils
19. The lack of Helium in the earth’s atmosphere
20. The rapid growth of stalactites and stalagmites
21. The lack of soil horizons between sedimentary rock layers
22. The lack of V-shaped erosion marks in sedimentary rock layers
23. The lack of animal and plant burrows in sedimentary rock layers
24. The existence of billions of polystrate fossils in the sedimentary rock layers
25. “The Winding Up Dilemma” - galaxies rotate too fast to be billions of years old

If there were only one Geochronometer showing that the earth or universe were young, then it could be claimed that creationists are wrong. If there were several Geochronometers that show that the earth and universe are young, then we would have established an interesting trend. When there are over 200 Geochronometers that are in agreement; that the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are young; then we have substantial “proof” contrary to the opinion of evolutionists.
See also:
Why don't most people and even most scientists know the above? They don't know it because of the a priori fallacy of methodological naturalism or because they don't have a degree in the proper field where MN has a chokehold and excludes all data contrary to Biblical views of the age of the earth as much as possible. At a minimum, they have a moral duty to tell people that there is evidence for both sides. But atheists and secularists don't even do this. This completely amputates critical thought. Some scientists are intentionally involved in this deception. But many are not. They also are duped.
Dr. Grady S. McMurtry says in the above link.
"I was educated in public schools and secular universities to be an evolutionist. I earned my science degrees as an evolutionist. I believed it and taught it from the seventh grade level through the college level. Why did I do that? I was taught by men and women who suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. 

Some of them did it innocently and without malice; they didn’t think about it for themselves, they simply repeated what they had been taught to memorize. 

Some of them did it just to get a paycheck and did not concern themselves about whether it was right or not. 

But, some of them did it knowing exactly what they were doing. For them it was intentional and with malice." 
Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?

Dr. Whitelaw has shown how we can use logical dating methods to the supposed billions of years ages can be fit into 1000s in this article:
Fossil dating--correlates dates with 1000s of years of Biblical history.
Whitelaw, Robert L. (1970), “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 7:56-71.

A small bit of it is here:

View user profile

23 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:19 pm


There is very powerful evidence for creation and against Darwinism. 15 Ph.D. scientists summarize some of it. Watch especially the last part from ~1:18:00 to 1:31:00 on how Darwinism has been very damaging to millions of lives.

The Achille's Heels of Evolution 
15명의 과학자가 밝히는 진화론의 거짓말과 지구의 올바른 역사

Otangelo Grasso. This is another really good one to watch if you haven't seen it and deals some with the dating assumptions and how they are being overturned by current science.

A key principle to remember is that the Bible says that truth stands the test of time, but lies are exposed with time. Every version of Darwinism in history has been debunked with time. And every estimate of the age of the earth by Darwinians has been abandoned as false after some time of most materialists believing it.

Here are a couple insightful thoughts that relate to these issues as well:
FOSSIL PROGRESSION?, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creationevolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology." New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981

CATACLYSMIC BURIAL, JOHN R. HORNER, "...there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs ...there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. ... That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment." DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131

RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, "A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe... The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1

"Some papers give evidence of presenting filtered data. What is meant by filtered data, is that they only present the data that agrees with evolutionary thinking. The other data is eliminated. A very good example of this kind of filtering is a paper by Evernden JF, Savage DE, Curtis GH, James GT: Potassium-argon dating and the Cenozoic mammalian chronology of North America. Am J Sci 1964;22:145-98. This paper is now considered to be a classic paper.

On pages 171-174 they discuss why all but one potassium/argon date for the Rusinga Island bioites was discarded. Yet they use biotite in an uncritical manner in other areas where the dates they obtained matched their expectations. On Page 174, we can also note: "Unfortunately many of the samples that passed field inspection for suitability and were laboriously collected, later proved unsuitable for dating. . . . Thus, of some 65 samples collected by M. Skinner, only 10 could be used." Other creationists such as Paul Giem (in his book, Scientific Theology ), have thought: "It might have been interesting to know why such samples proved unsuitable for dating, and what their potassium/argon dates were." 

Geologist, Tas Walker, writes:
"Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable.
"However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
"Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like it to be." -- Tas Walker

View user profile

24 Re: Evidence that the earth is Young on Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:07 am


John Carlisle Age of earth 
The 66 texts written by 40 authors over 1600 years depict a HYPER ACCURATE GENEALOGY with names, dates, places, events, relationships etc etc etc that to this day have not only NOT been disproven but have been WELL PROVEN BY REPEATED ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EASTERN LANDSCAPE. It is THE MOST STRICTLY GUARDED AND KEPT TEXT IN HUMAN HISTORY and is more substantiated by corroborating evidence than any other historical texts BY THOUSANDS more documents both secular and theological. 

It’s the most strictly kept series of HISTORICAL RECORDS kept throughout human history. 

Look how quickly the theories AGED the earth LONG BEFORE radio metric or radio isotope data was available. Then take a look at the IMMENSE FLAWS in both of these dating methods dating a living snail at 3600 years old, a 25 year old geyser spring at over 1,000,000 and Mt St Helens freshly formed rocks at 56,000 yrs old! There IS no accurate means and they’ll run multiple tests only printing the results that match their presupposed beliefs. Other results are thrown out as ‘flawed’.

Comte de Buffon 78 thousand years old 1779
Abraham Werner 1 million years 1786
James Hutton Perhaps eternal, long ages 1795
Pièrre LaPlace Long ages 1796
Jean Lamarck Long ages 1809
William Smith Long ages 1835
Georges Cuvier Long ages 1812
Charles Lyell Millions of years 1830–1833
Lord Kelvin 20–100 million years 1862–1899
Arthur Holmes 1.6 billion years 1913
Clair Patterson 4.5 billion years 1956
Radiometric dating results are only used when we have NO idea the age of the subject and want to support millions or billions. They are and have been proven to be completely unreliable.

So the ONLY substantial ‘DATA’ we have is compiled from supremely well kept historical records regarding familial lineage and genealogy, historical and political events and timelines and corresponding archeological finds. 

THAT and THOSE are SCIENTIFIC. The rest is purely imagined

Prior to the 1700s, few believed in an old earth. The approximate 6,000-year age for the earth was challenged only rather recently, beginning in the late 18th century. These opponents of the biblical chronology essentially left God out of the picture. Three of the old-earth advocates included Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old. Pièrre LaPlace imagined an indefinite but very long history. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages.11

However, the idea of millions of years really took hold in geology when men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell used their interpretations of geology as the standard, rather than the Bible. Werner estimated the age of the earth at about one million years. Smith and Cuvier believed untold ages were needed for the formation of rock layers. Hutton said he could see no geological evidence of a beginning of the earth; and building on Hutton’s thinking, Lyell advocated “millions of years.”

From these men and others came the consensus view that the geologic layers were laid down slowly over long periods of time based on the rates at which we see them accumulating today. Hutton said:

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. . . . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.12
This viewpoint is called naturalistic uniformitarianism, and it excludes any major catastrophes such as Noah’s flood. Though some, such as Cuvier and Smith, believed in multiple catastrophes separated by long periods of time, the uniformitarian concept became the ruling dogma in geology.

So don’t believe the radiological arguments nor the “rock dating” arguments because both are supremely flawed from their onset. 

The age of the earth scientists now spout came from NOTHING more than theorized imaginings of incredulity touted by 17th century geologists and weakly clung to by modern regurgitation.

Additionally there is AMPLE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DATA including human population numbers, thickness of moon dust, distance of moon from the earth relative to known movement, salinity of the ocean relative to known salinity development and increase rates etc etc etc all point to ‘THOUSANDS not millions’.

Pay attention to the PURPOSE of those who are teaching you and ONLY to the SUBSTANCE they are teaching.

View user profile

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum